Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Unhealthy monks
Zania
Explorer
After watching the insightful video someone posted of Ajahn Chah and the thai forest monks I have to say their lifestyle looks imbalanced and unhealthy. If all they eat all day is the scraps they receive in the morning which appears to consist of mostly some rice then malnutrition and associated health issues must be rife. You can survive on that but the human body requires more than that to be healthy. I read an article recently that said how many of the monks in Bangkok are becoming obese because they eat what they are given and many people give them Junk food such as cakes and sweets. They also smoke cigarettes. If Siddartha gave up asceticism for the middle way why do today's monks still follow such an ascetic path?
2
Comments
This raises an interesting question about living from alms.
There are quite a few articles about this problem out there. It's quite sad. I've never been exactly clear on why they do it this way. I assume it has something to do with giving up the pleasures that are so associated with eating. But we know better now, and people absolutely can eat to nourish their bodies minus the desire to eat only for pleasure. Asceticism (correct me if I am wrong, it's not something I have spent much time on) though is more the forced denial of things with the belief that it will lead to enlightenment. Buddha tried it, and then decided it was not a good way to go. Most modern teachers of wisdom traditions will tell you that a health body is necessary for a healthy mind. But there are many other things that official Buddhists fall victim to as well. Being monks doesn't make them perfect, and they are still stuck with the cultures in which they live. You'd think leaders like Ajahn Chah would see the error in that, so perhaps there is more to it.
TNH has some great stuff out there about Mindful eating, and Japanese Oryoki is another nice practice. It seems like too many monsteries are missing out on the benefits of mindfulness in eating as well as nourishing the body. Even if they limit themselves to one meal a day, or not eating after noon, they most certainly can do better. But then who pays for their food? Perhaps their societies could help by giving them better options. They remind me of grandmother's wanting to give fresh cookies to kids way too often, lol. I'm sure they think it's an honor to give tasty treats to monks without realizing how many other people do the same.
I guess another way to look at it is from the monk's viewpoint, which is allowing the layperson to practice "Dana" in whatever way they can afford to and if it means giving the monks junk food (ie, what they can afford) then the monks will accept it with gratitude for to do otherwise would be to show ungratefulness, ie, it would be saying to the poor layperson their offerings were insufficient/lacking, making the layperson feel inadequate and less worthy of the monks compassion...
Also in Thailand as elsewhere in predominately Buddhist countries "Karma" & "Merits" play a big part in the daily life of the locals....
I guess all this must also be taken into account when looking at different cultural practices and traditions.....
Death to the Hinayana heretics! Long live the Mahayana chefs.
Sorry must be malnourished or something I ate ...
Some of the healthiest food is the cheapest i.e. brown rice and lentils however if one is so poor that education about basic healthy eating practice is not even possible then I suppose its not even in their awareness.
As far as what you have said about "saying to the poor layperson their offerings were insufficient/lacking" well maybe the lay people need to learn to not take it personally especially being as they are believers in annata.
This is where I turn away from organised religions. When people get stuck in certain ways of doing things just because its tradition and even when that way becomes dysfunctional they keep on doing it. if monks started dropping dead from heart attacks or dying really young from malnutrition would the lay people still feel inadequate if their junk food was turned down?
The junk food thing was an article I read. I was more curious really as to how they can just survive on that one meal a day. I dont think I would last very long
It seems to be a particular problem in Thailand, I've not yet come across articles relating to this in other cultures. But yes, very sad. Was reading this article about it.
I do think the whole system of gaining karma and merit by caring for monks is a bit suspect. It's a good thing to do obviously but to expect to gain some kind of otherworldly reward for it seems a bit dodgy.
Indeed well said.
I get four tins of chickpeas for 99p (not even $1.50 US) and a bag of gram (bean) flour for making falafel or pakora for 99p too.
My main dishes are meditationranean - sort of Italian Dharma. That means fish and garlic/onions (not availible for unhealthy Therevadins) and tomatoes (not allowed for full monks and strict nuns - such as the legendary, None 'the Wiser').
Fortunately Western Therevadins do have gruel for breakfast and maybe some afternoon soup as well as the main meal. Maybe we need evangelicals to send to Our Eastern Sisterhood, warning them that chocolate is not medicine a healthy body is part of a healthy mind, empty of craving asceticism ...
Many are quite poor and uneducated in these developing countries...One must also take into account here in the West obesity from eating junk food is also a major problem for Westerners ...Again those Westerners on the lower socioeconomic ladder are most at risk, but obesity from eating junk food, is not limited to just them....
Sadly easier said than done...Have the well educated people in the West learnt this simple truth yet ????..
If they were not fully informed about the cause, then yes they would...Again we need to take into account the lack of education and the possible obstacles in getting the word out to the local villagers...Bearing in mind local culture, tradition, values and respect...
Sadly some people have no choice....one meal a day is a luxury...
Perhaps @Zania you should go ahead with your travel plans to Thailand and visit some remote villages, it would be an education, especially regarding cultural differences and values.... A trip well worth doing...
I live very well on one meal a day. It has led to a reduction in greed and an increase in health.
For all we talk about the Middle Way, there has always been a strong streak of asceticism in Buddhism. You can't admonish people to "extinguish all desires" and teach that a normal life runs counter to enlightenment, and then claim moderation is all we're expecting from people.
I think the problem was and maybe still remains that Buddhism started as an ascetic cult so middle way meant something different to them. They were comparing themselves to what Gautama had been doing before his enlightenment, which is a slow form of suicide by starvation.
The middle way did not apply to lay Buddhists then, because there was no such thing as a lay Buddhist. Nobody had an altar in their house devoted to Buddha. To practice Buddhism meant becoming a monk. The lay people believed in karma the same way people believe in luck and thought supporting any holy man was good karma, so they donated to the monks, but it didn't make them Buddhist. It didn't matter which holy man. There were other enlightened gurus running around at the time with their own devoted followers, you know. The suttas just ignore them.
But practicing the Dharma required renouncing their normal life and living as a beggar. It was only later, as Buddha came to be seen as something special in the long line of enlightened gurus, that a proper religion developed and people from Kings to farmers could say "I'm Buddhist". Now, saying it means you see Gautama as a unique enlightened man with a message about the world that everyone, including the lay people, can follow. The history of our religion is fascinating.
Regarding Ajahn Chah, when he speaks of the early days(1950s/60s) when there was little support in his area and the lay people were quite poor, he speaks about how all you need is rice and water and being ascetic and such.
I don't think they went out of their way to NOT eat "well rounded meals", they just didn't exist where he was at that time. Once he become well known I don't believe it was an issue. In the talks I've listened to he uses the experience of that time as a way to implore the monks to be content with what they have.
It is quite well expounded in even the earliest suttas that taking care of monks, especially monks who are REALLY practicing, brings very large benefit. There was even a ranking scale in one sutta about how much merit is gained by giving to certain types of people. Interestingly enough the Buddha put giving/helping animals on the scale, although on the bottom under humans, with giving to Arahants and Buddhas at the top.
When people become obsessed with getting something for their giving, they naturally want to "get the most bang for your buck" so even though the Buddha taught to be compassionate to all beings, and his most rich and generous supporter, Anathapindika, got his name for giving alms to the poor, people want to get the the most merit by showering the monastics with stuff and you don't see much help for anyone else as far as I can tell.
Here at Bhavana when people come to bring a dāna, meal donation, we are often asked " what do the monks need"... my answer is almost always " well the monks don't need anything, but the monastery needs... (a million things!)". That isn't looked at as more important then helping out individual monastics for some people.
The Buddha would Disagree. I can't find the specific sutta right now but he lists off just in this very city there are (500 of each type) - male and female lay persons who are stream-enterers, once returners, and non-returners.
It's my perspective from reading the suttas and getting to know the culture at the time, that it seemed the fourfold assembly(male and female monastics, male and female lay followers) were much more cooperative and on "even" ground as it were back then compared to now. I think over the centuries it grew into this "monks are like high priests" type thing that you often see today.
These days you have the east where monks are sacred, and the west where it's felt they aren't even needed. A return to a middle ground is needed, in reality it's just another way of practice among the fourfold assembly.
On the flip side, the American idea of what constitutes a well rounded diet is extravagant and way too many calories for the average office job worker. The only reason the official calorie goal is so high is because so many of us eat nutritionally lacking meals and to get near enough nutrition, we eat way too much. Many of us are overweight but malnourished. Sad. One could easily eat 1-2 meals a day that were nutrient dense and be far healthier than the average American who eats 3 meals and 2 snacks a day. You'd be surprised how far a light breakfast of eggs and toast and a lunch of a large salad will take you. Even with the lower calorie count, your body is getting more nutrients which is more important than stuffing calories in to meet some arbitrary number.
That said, education is only part of it. We are educated constantly about diet stuff, and we're still a mess. Culture is huge. We compare the American diet standards to the rest of the world and tell them they are doing it wrong and in their eyes, we are the ones doing it wrong. Chickpeas and lentils might be cheap here, but they might be completely unavailable elsewhere. While in Asia, many local fruit and fish at stands are dirt cheap while we pay a premium for apples grown in our own states. (mmm honeycrisp. $4 a pound...) and salmon caught nearby. We enjoy making foods of all types available year round, but that's not necessarily a healthy thing and just contributes to confusion when our bodies were designed to follow the seasons of nature yet we are eating summer foods in January.
While the situation with some of the monks is sad and strange to consider, I'm sure they think the same about our eating habits. My teacher eats twice a day and maybe fruit for a snack. He drinks a lot of tea and water. I'd guess he's quite a bit healthier and more nourished than most of the rest of us. Food is first and foremost, a pleasure and a distraction to most of us. Little thought goes into providing our bodies with the nourishment it needs.
I'll have to do more research. Thanks for pointing that out.
Great posts guys
Particularly liked @Jayantha insights.
Food for me is very interesting; from sacred flesh eating in the Eucharist, through to Jain ultra-diets and beyond.
Most of us who have eaten with monks, know how ideally eating is meditation.
One of my favourite retreats was with Christian monks. We ate in silence apart from one monk reading - a secular and mildly humorous reading. The food was plain and wholesome, squashes were grown in the monastery and also baking apples stuffed with dried fruits and served with custard. How wonderful. Sacrament.
Nourishment takes many forms ...
This isn't exactly what I was looking for, but close:
“Good, Gotama, wait! Is there a single bhikkhu a disciple of Gotama, who has destroyed desires, has released the mind from desires and released through wisdom, abiding, here and now?' `Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred.There are many more bhikkhus, disciples of mine, who have destroyed desires, the mind released from desires and released through wisdom, here and now abiding,'
Good, Gotama, wait! Let alone bhikkhus. Is there a single bhikkhuni a disciple of Gotama, who has destroyed desires has released the mind from desires and released through wisdom, here and now, have realised?'Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many, more bhikkhunis, disciples of mine, who have destroyed desires, the mind released from desires and released through wisdom, here and now realising abide.Good, Gotama, wait! Other than bhikkhus, and bhikkhunis. Is there a single lay disciple of Gotama, who wearing white clothes had led the holy life, has destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and is born spontaneously, not to proceed?'Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred.There are many more lay disciples of mine, who have destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and born spontaneously would not proceed`Good, Gotama, wait! Other than bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and lay disciples of Gotama, who wear white clothes and lead the holy life. Is there a single a lay disciple, who wears white clothes, leads the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures, and doing the work in the dispensation has dispelled doubts. Has become confident of what should and should not be done, and does not need a teacher any more in the dispensation of the Teacher. Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, wearing white clothes leadingthe holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures and doing the work in the dispensation have dispelled doubts Have become confident of what should and should not be done and do not need a teacher any more,'
Good, Gotama, wait! Other than the bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, the lay disciples who have arisen spontaneously and will not proceed, and the ones who have entered the stream of the Teaching and are confident, is there a single female lay disciple of good Gotama. Who wears white clothes leads the holy life has destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and is born spontaneously not to proceed'Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more female lay disciples of mine, who have destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and are born spontaneously not to proceed,'Good, Gotama, wait! Other than the bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, lay disciples arisen spontaneously who would not proceed and the ones who have entered the stream of the Teaching and are confident and the lay female disciples who have arisen apontaneously not to proceed is there is a single female lay disciple. Who wears white clothes leads the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures, anddoing the work in the dispensation has dispelled doubts, has become confident, of what should and should not be done and does not need a teacher any more.'Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more female lay disciples of mine wearing white clothes lead the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures, doing the work in the dispensation have dispelled doubts. Have become confident of what should and should not be done. They do not need a teacher any more in the dispensation of the Teacher.So, so true @karasti It's only very recently that I've realized how poorly I've been eating most of my life, as do most of the people I know. I have been working on losing weight, which has gone up and down in the last couple of decades because of IBD. But, it had slowly crept up after each flare-up. And I had a period of pain from arthritis, where I was not moving much at all, and eating way too much (and eating a lot of fatty and sugary things) to the point where I was almost obese.
Cutting out the bad snacking, watching portions at mealtimes, and walking each day, I've really lost an amazing amount of weight in only a couple of months. I'm drinking much more water than I used to, I skip the sugar in my tea now, and when I do drink pop I opt for diet.
I feel so much better. I wish I had done this a long time ago.
40% of Canadian adults are overweight, and a further 25% are obese. It really is an epidemic.
I'm wondering if the Dalai Lama goes without meals. I bet he doesn't.
I can't see how this would increase health unless one is morbidly obese or unless you are just doing for a couple of days as a fast. For anyone else it's more like an eating disorder. Blood sugar levels would take a nosedive also which can lead to lethargy and depression. The body would go into survival mode. If you are sitting meditating all day then perhaps the body doesn't need the energy but for anyone else to live like that for more than a few days would not be healthy.
I was a monastic for a few years, and ate 1 meal a day. Now I eat more than 1 meal a day, and honestly I feel unhealthier than I did eating only once a day. Why don't I just stay on 1 meal a day as a layperson? I actually do sometimes but it is difficult to keep up when you do not have that training rule as a guide.
Bikkhus (most of them) believed and practiced one meal a day nearly 2600 years
Buddha in Kitagiri sutta explains the value of it
before write an article how long a writer has to do his/her research
and
how big is the sample (number of data) he/she uses to analyse and get an inference?
You'd bet wrong. He's a Monastic. As he is also a Globally-recognised Tradition-leader in one of the world's major religions, I suspect adhering to a strict monastic regime may sometimes prove difficult. But outside of international public engagements, he is (by his own definition) a 'Simple 'Monk' and therefore does as other monks do.
He is also victim to health issues contracted while escaping Tibet, and has doctors and advisers to monitor his health...
I visited Amaravati Monastery some time ago, and yes. All the monks eat once a day.
Providing your intake is healthy, and the food wholesome and enough, a person CAN live on one meal a day.
I myself eat twice a day, (breakfast and lunch) and these two meals are more than enough. The breakfast consists of pre-soaked oats (in almond milk) with blueberries, almonds, pomegranate nibs and two chopped dried prunes, with a teaspoonful of maca powder. Lunch typically consists of cold, pre-cooked soba noodles (around 100g) with a portion of firm tofu, a soy sauce (home-made) condiment and hijiki seaweed, with a pudding of yoghurt, sliced mango, and pumpkin seeds, and again, Maca powder.
Dinner? No dinner. Maybe an apple, tops.
I asked one monk that how they managed to live eating once a day. He said they eat breakfast and lunch before 12 O'clock.
He also said people are very caring they give them enough food and there is no problem. He is from Shri Lanka.
When I was learning lessons of Vipassana at lgatpuri, they gave us free breakfast and lunch before noon. It was having all nutrients and enough to live healthy. Living like a monk consists of keeping calm and minimum physical work. And when we practice such lifestyle then more calories are not needed. We become more healthy by mind and body. It is best lifestyle.
More food is required when people need to do more physical work. Even mental work consumes lot of calories. Brain consumes 98% of sugar that body needs.
But problems occurs for those monks living in non influential Buddhist countries where people do not care to offer food to monks.
I went to school for molecular biology but never worked in that field. Once or twice a decade, out of curiosity, I bring myself current with the latest research in nutrition. The change in scientific understanding over the last 25 years is amazing. So what monks thought was "healthy" 2500 years ago might well be congruent with what science may think 25 years from now. It is a mistake to believe we really know what a healthy diet actually is.
What's wrong with survival mode? Isn't survival better than not survival?
I'm being serious. Research is showing that "caloric restriction " significantly increases lifespan, in multiple species studied to date. I don't think we really know what the right amount of food is, although evidence is beginning to accumulate.
@Zania there are ways to keep the blood sugar stable without just taking in food. The body actually regulates this process quite well on it's own unless you have a related disorder. Carbs are mostly for more vigorous activity. A person can do quite well on a very low carb diet, as the body can use fat for energy very well. It just doesn't work well for vigorous activity (running, boxing, etc) unless you have trained your body to be used to the effects. Survival mode is largely a myth, in that it is used incorrectly by a lot of people who are dieting. The effects are real, but it doesn't work quite the way we have been told it does. And a person who is living a monastic life would have a body that is adapted to it and they can do just fine on it. Many people find they can be quite healthy on 1000-1200 calories a day despite what our government tells us. Your body won't wither away to nothing.
The Dalai Lama eats 2 meals a day, not one. But he does not eat after noon. He eats breakfast and lunch, and has tea in the afternoon.His daily habits have been discussed numerous times in articles, and on his own webpage.
@Steve_B
This article explains fairly well what is meant by it and what it really does. It gets a negative connotation because it is a death knell to people who are trying to lose weight. For someone who does not need to lose weight, it is different as their body is already (usually) at a healthier level for metabolism. For someone who is highly active, not getting enough calories can have poor results, it just depends on the person, their activity level and other very individual things. it's a bit different for everyone.
https://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/
Thanks Karasti, good lay article. But by using the phrase starvation mode, it eliminates the wordplay I used with survival mode. "What's wrong with survival mode? Survival is good,no?" doesn't work so well if you substitute starvation.
In any event, you seem like you might enjoy some of the current thinking on insulin index (which extends and builds on the glycemic index concept) and the connection to inflammation and impact on longevity. Intriguing stuff. Clearly big changes in our comprehension of nutrition and lifespan/healthspan are on the near horizon.